教廷外交：如何面對分裂與主權爭議國家

教廷外交如何在「宗教道德」與「現實權力」之間找到平衡點？教廷依照「哪些原則」參與國際行使它的外交權？教廷基於保護它的「國家利益」——它在各國天主教會的利益，教廷與各國政府交涉時，通常優先顧及各地教會的安全、教產的保護、教會組織的自主權等涉及教會安全、傳教權利及教會共融的自身議題。若是與俗世國家有政教爭執，教廷可能進一步與該國洽談簽署政教協議(concordat)或其它專項類別的雙邊協議，透過協議簽署及該國國內法落實，確保該國天主教會利益受到法律保障。教廷外交也可能透過與各國政府磋商及維持良好關係，促進各國政府推動符合教廷信理的政策，例如，廢除死刑或禁止墮胎等符合教會主張的法律規範。站在主權國家的視角，教廷按照理性抉擇，出於最大化自身利益的目的，根據它的「國家利益」保護和發展天主教會，符合國際關係學現實主義認為「國家會自利自助(self-help)」的觀察。然而，教廷作為世界宗教及國際道德權威的角色，它的外交似乎也秉持聖經的教導的精神，為充滿競爭和殘酷的現實國際政治帶來希望。像是面對國際人道危機時，在維護各地教會利益外，為苦難人民「多說點話多做點事」，彰顯並落實它促進世界和平及人權保障的國際倡議。然而，教廷外交在維護教會自身利益和關懷道德需求的兩項工作間，有時也會出現矛盾和衝突，如何紓解這些矛盾？是誰支配教廷外交的決策？教廷外交依據什麼原則？筆者認為，因為教廷是個神權專制(Theo-absolute monarchy)國家，輿論對於教廷外交的觀察，習慣以「教宗」本人特質來解讀教廷外交決定，將教廷的外交責任歸咎於教宗的人格特質與政治偏好。不過，筆者認為教廷面對外交事務的抉擇，並非全然是教宗任意的(arbitrary)決定。新任教宗即便再創新，仍須奠基在歷代教宗文件、教會訓導的指引做抉擇。此外，教廷整體機構內，不同部委及樞機主教間不同立場、觀點、看法、職權的制肘，也可能影響教宗的決策。因此，本文嘗試在複雜的教廷政治中，提出教廷外交可能依循的基礎原則，並且以教廷面對分裂與主權爭議國家的外交抉擇作為案例。筆者提出有關教廷參與國際社會的原則，首先引述自教廷外交研究文獻、教會史文獻或是教會人士的對外說法，筆者相信這些觀點並非空穴來風，它們可能出自長久以來的社會訓導(Social Doctrine)，也可能是教廷建立主權國家後逐漸形塑的外交慣例。如果能將教廷外交的歷史個案，歸納為教廷外交的普遍原則，將有助於解釋教廷外交的行為，並運用在中華民國與教廷維繫外交關係之參考。

關鍵字

教廷外交；教宗外交；聖座外交；中梵關係；臺梵關係；分裂國家

並列摘要

There are tensions in the Holy See diplomacy among divinity and secularity. People hope the Holy See acts as moral sovereignty rather than a realist. However, it may be a misunderstanding of the Holy See diplomacy. In this thesis, the author declares that the Holy See follows the rules of the realist to obtain their religious rights. As tiny as the city-state like the Vatican, there are few militaries, commercial methods that could implement in the global society. However, the magnificent impact of Catholic belief distinguishes the Holy See and the other secular sovereignty. With the Lateran Treaty of 1929, the Holy See and the Vatican city-state are two sovereignty on one land. But the Vatican city-state gives the diplomatic rights to the Holy See, in totally control its bilateral relations and international involvement. Therefore, the Holy See is the main actor in its bilateral relations. The author finds that the Holy See follows the rules of the realism, which acts in three patterns: (1) follows the recognition of Christianity countries and does not make bilateral relations with those countries who keep violating the rights of the Catholic church. (2) adheres to the neutral principle and does not get involved in the bilateral or multilateral crisis. (3) does not proactively cut off the existing bilateral relations. The findings are somehow different from the common sense of the Holy See diplomacy, who seems always behaving as the moral actor in the global crises like migration, war, et cetera. But, according to the thesis, in which research on multilateral relations among the Holy See and split countries, the author finds that the Holy See acts as rational sovereignty and follows the rules of realism and the three patterns. Furthermore, the thesis also concludes the prospect of Sino-Vatican relations and gives diplomatic advice to those who regard the issues.